Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mickel]

Wow. That's a lot to think about in my headachy state, but it all looks good so far.

[Turgid Bolk]

quote:Originally posted by Nil Eyeglazed:
<STRONG>So it shoves your haulers into the barracks? Tough, man. Learn a trade.</STRONG>

Uh, I'm not an economics major, but if that was the case, wouldn't everyone learn a trade? Would hauling jobs ever get done? I assume there's some system that increases the pay for jobs the longer they sit? Could you increase the pay or priority of a job directly (e.g. Someone move this food NOW)?

Also, it seems like you could doom a dwarf to poverty by never enabling a skill for him besides "stone hauling," even if your fortress relied on his work. Or would you take skill assignment out of the player's hands, and have dwarves do whatever tasks suit them (based on prefs, personality, and how badly they need the cash)?

In any case, it all looks very cool and well thought-out. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of this get implemented. Welcome to the forums!

[irmo]

quote:Originally posted by Felix the Cat:
<STRONG>I think the point is that all of that could/should/would change with a more detailed economic system.

The dwarves should get paid for their work so that they can go buy essentials and luxuries. The money shouldn't magically appear when they get paid and magically disappear when they spend it. When they get paid, the money should move from the employer (fortress or other dwarf) to the employee; when it is spent, it should move from the buyer to the seller. There should be a fortress treasury that stores all of the money that is the property of the fortress as a whole (or property of whoever you imagine the player to be - the Mayor/Baron/King, the "government", the "will of the dwarves", the "power behind the throne", whatever). The amount of money and amount of goods in the fortress should affect the fortress economy. Later on down the Economy/Trade Arc, the economy of the fortress should be tied into the world economy.</STRONG>

This isn't necessarily a more detailed system, just a different one.  The "company town" system could be just as detailed, and makes more sense given the fortress's situation in the world, i.e. in the middle of nowhere and thus self-sufficient.

The dwarves get paid in fiat money because they're actually getting paid in fortress products.  What would the "fortress treasury" represent?  The capacity of the fortress to buy stuff from the dwarves?  The dwarves have nothing to sell.

Now, if you're proposing this system in addition to the company town model, that might make sense.  I could see the dwarves developing some kind of private-enterprise system once there's enough production that it's not going to cause anyone to starve.  The problem, if the player represents the government, is that the government isn't making most of the decisions any more.

Me: Dig a tunnel here.
Dwarf: No, it will be more profitable for me to sell trinkets to the humans.

So the game switches from highly detailed management to something more hands-off involving tweaking tax rates and issuing orders to buy up goods and then sitting back and watching the results.  This makes the late game less tedious to manage, but possibly at the cost of making it mostly non-interactive.  If we go down this road, I would at least want this mode to be easily avoidable, like the economy is now.

[Felix the Cat]

I guess I'm letting my politics color my suggestions   :p

In today's world, the primary use of the "company town" model is by South American plantation owners to keep the peasants in modern-day slavery. Most "company towns" were/are more or less based around the same concept - pay the employees next to nothing and don't let them leave; the employees are in debt to the company for various things, don't get paid enough to repay the debt, become more in debt, and all the while they are being paid in scrip that is not accepted anywhere except for the company store. It's not something I'd feel comfortable about supporting, and I doubt it's what DF is aiming for anyways.

[Fieari]

quote:Originally posted by Turgid Bolk:
<STRONG>I just found a nifty essay on MMORPG economics, which has some relevance here, and besides that it's damn interesting. Check it out here.</STRONG>

I just wanted to comment that this actually has a lot less to do with our situation than you'd think.  It expressly describes a situation in which resources just keep magically appearing.  In Dwarf Fortress, this is far far far less the case (except in the case of goblin raids, but even that is going to change eventually).

[Tamren]

quote:Originally posted by Nil Eyeglazed:
<STRONG>New shops: Reduce military micromanagement, and improve consistency with Adventure mode.  Weapon shops and armor shops.  If your champion likes copper, well he'll wear copper.  Tough titty.  You will also end up with a more historically accurate military picture.  Soldiers don't wear masterpieces-- rich people do.</STRONG>

Nice stuff Nil, only got time to reply to one thing though.

I have some stuff on soldiers lying around that i will finish someday but it essentially works like this:
1. Warriors are seperate from Soldiers. Warriors know how to fight. Soldiers know how to fight TOGETHER with 99 other soldiers and are paid to retain that level of discipline. In DF terms that would mean that your armed forces would only evolve into a standing military force once it aquires the skill and leadership to rise above a militia.

Warriors in your fortress would include anyone who knows how to swing or fire a weapon without hurting themselves. People like the sheriff, hunters, miners and woodcutters. In a pinch these dwarves can be drafted as millitia or in the case of the sherrif, used as a sargeant. Soldiers are organized into squads, have a chain of command, will not desert a post until ordered to and so on.

In terms of economics, the soldiers would be supplied by the state, IE you. Each soldier recieves the same equipment and they are upgraded en mass. If a soldier can affort better equipment he is free to buy it as long as it is a better version of what you have assigned to him. A marksdwarf would not be very useful if he traded his iron crossbow for a steel spear for example.

The warriors and civilians in your fortress would be supplied in some ways depending on what they do. If you want to hire a dwarf as a miner, you need to give him a pick or he will get no work done. If you wanted to, you could decree that some types of workers be given further equipment. So lets say you had a core of 16 lumberjacks. All of them are given the best ax you can make for them, which at this time is steel. Your fortress happens to be in an area with much undead, so you decide that all of them should be given leather armour and a chainmail vest. The cost goes to the state, it works just like equipping a group of soldiers.

Now that leaves the rest of the fortress. IMHO every dwarf with the possible exception of children should carry at least a belt knife. If nothing else, this is used for eating and each dwarf would want one. Further than that, each dwarf is free to purchase any arms or armour that he wants. Your fortress might have 10 dwarves trained to use the ax, but that does not mean all of them are soldiers.

Like you said, if the sherrif wants copper armour he WILL buy copper armour at his own expense. Perhaps a farmer might buy and wear a shortsword because he works beside the dangerous river all day. But if a soldier liked copper and his squad was armed with steel, he would not be allowed to use the inferior armour because that would weaken the squad as a whole.

Make sense?

[Leonidas]

1.  IRL, people make coins and other currency for a specific reason: more efficient storage of value.  Coins in the current version are a disaster because they are actually less efficient at storing value than the alternatives.  So if DF is going to have coins, then don't demand all this labor to pick them up and store them.  Either let it run on credit, or let the dwarves carry coins on their persons, maybe only unloading when they sleep.

2.  I think that the whole economics idea doesn't fit with the setting or feel of the rest of the game, and that's why it raises so many problems.  We're simulating a fortress, a military outpost in which every dwarf must do exactly as he is told.  

All these coins moving around and prices changing would work fine if you wanted to simulate a city in which the citizens have free will and must be persuaded to do what you want.  But that would be a very, very different game.  And there are already lots and lots of games like that, simulating all sorts of economies.  If I want SimCity, then I'll play SimCity.

And the economy isn't nearly large enough to require coins.  Currency economies are for strangers.  There are only 100 or so dwarves in the whole fortress.  They all know each other on a first-name basis.  It's a very, very small town in which everybody knows everybody else's business, all the time.  If Likot the peasant swipes a platinum idol that's way too nice for a shlub like him, then everyone will know about it, and they'll take steps to fix the problem.  You don't need an elaborate system of coins and prices for a group of 100 dwarves to allocate resources.

And even if the dwarves were inclined to fuss around with coins, they haven't the time.  They're in constant danger: goblins on the left, demons on the right, and the constantly looming threat of starvation.  They don't work at their jobs because they feel like it; they work because their lives depend on it.  This is a military operation, and any dwarf who doesn't like it can visit the hammerer.

[ September 26, 2007: Message edited by: Leonidas ]

[Fieari]

quote:Originally posted by Leonidas:
<STRONG>2.  I think that the whole economics idea doesn't fit with the setting or feel of the rest of the game, and that's why it raises so many problems.  We're simulating a fortress, a military outpost in which every dwarf must do exactly as he is told.  

All these coins moving around and prices changing would work fine if you wanted to simulate a city in which the citizens have free will and must be persuaded to do what you want.  But that would be a very, very different game.  And there are already lots and lots of games like that, simulating all sorts of economies.  If I want SimCity, then I'll play SimCity.</STRONG>

The game isn't a simulation of a military location... or at least, that's not what version 1.0 of the game will be.  It's a Fantasy World Simulator, with Procedural Storyline Generation.  A full length Final Fantasy style game where the story isn't pre-scripted.  Thus, towards this goal, an economy is NECESSARY.  Because so many stories revolve around it.

[mickel]

Agreed. A working economy is necessary for this game to be what it's meant to be.